United States v. Stringer

143 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Raniere

    384 F. Supp. 3d 282 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)   Cited 58 times
    Concluding that subsections and constitute different ways of committing the same crime

    An indictment satisfies Rule 7(c)(1) —and thus the requirements of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments —if it " ‘first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.’ " United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ); see also United States v. Lee, 833 F.3d 56, 67-68 (2d Cir. 2016) (stating that an indictment's failure to allege an element of the charged offense is a constitutional violation).

  2. United States v. Nejad

    18-cr-224 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2019)   Cited 9 times
    Adopting the broad definition of services from Banki

    But in order "to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 7(c)(1), an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Put differently, "the indictment need only allege the 'core of criminality' the Government intends to prove at trial, since the indictment is 'read . . . to include facts which are necessarily implied by the specific allegations made.'"

  3. United States v. Wey

    15-cr-611 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017)   Cited 39 times
    In United States v. Wey, No. 15-CR-611 (AJN), 2017 WL 237651, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2017), the court rejected the argument that the indictment was defective for failing to allege fraudulent intent and explained that the defendant had "conflate[d] the standard for sufficiency of the Government's proof at trial with the categorically less demanding standard for sufficiency of the Indictment's allegations."

    In order to satisfy those requirements "[a]n indictment 'need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime.'" United States v. Rajaratnam, 13-cr-211, 2014 WL 1554078, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2014) (quoting United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013)). Furthermore, "[t]he Supreme Court has 'identified two constitutional requirements for an indictment: first, that it contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, that it enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions of the same offense.'"

  4. United States v. Thompson

    141 F. Supp. 3d 188 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)   Cited 15 times
    Finding several counts of an indictment partially deficient because those counts all included the element that the defendant persuaded the victims to engage in "any sexual activity for which a person could be charged with a criminal offense," but failed to specify any particular such sexual activity

    Finally, it preserves the protection given by the Fifth Amendment from being ‘held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.’United States v. Silverman, 430 F.2d 106, 110 (2d Cir.1970)modified, 439 F.2d 1198 (2d Cir.1970) ; see Gonzalez, 686 F.3d at 126 ; United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974) ). Rule 7(c) protects these rights.

  5. United States v. Prado

    Cr. 21-10158-MLW (D. Mass. Oct. 30, 2023)

    "In general, an indictment is sufficient if it specifies the elements of the offense charged, fairly apprises the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and allows him to contest it without fear of double jeopardy." United States v. Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d. Cir. 2013). Even if an indictment is deficient, however, a conviction will not be reversed unless the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency.

  6. United States v. Prado

    701 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D. Mass. 2023)

    "In general, an indictment is sufficient if it specifies the elements of the offense charged, fairly apprises the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and allows him to contest it without fear of double jeopardy." United States v. Eirby, 262 F.3d 31, 38 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974)); see also United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d. Cir. 2013). Even if an indictment is deficient, however, a conviction will not be reversed unless the defendant was prejudiced by the deficiency.

  7. United States v. Bankman-Fried

    22-cr-0673 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 29, 2023)

    (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1)). United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2000)).

  8. United States v. Bankman-Fried

    680 F. Supp. 3d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 3 times
    Acknowledging the question but concluding that "the Court need not decide whether it would be premature to dismiss the indictment on extraterritoriality grounds at this stage"

    United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d 519, 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(c)(1)). United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Pirro, 212 F.3d 86, 92 (2d Cir. 2000)).

  9. United States v. Wahab

    21-CR-603 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2022)

    Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an indictment need only contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged . . . .” “An indictment is sufficient if it ‘first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.'” United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974)); see also United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007).

  10. United States v. Murgio

    209 F. Supp. 3d 698 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indictment under § 1960 need not specify particular transactions of bitcoin exchanger to be sufficient

    But in order "to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 7(c)(1), an indictment need do little more than to track the language of the statute charged and state the time and place (in approximate terms) of the alleged crime." United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir.2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Put differently, "the indictment need only allege the ‘core of criminality’ the Government intends to prove at trial, since the indictment is ‘read ... to include facts which are necessarily implied by the specific allegations made.’